Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Screening action and rewards

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, JonSnowLetsGo said:

First of all its superhard to find players in OW with such a huge map and so few players, I dont waste 3 hours to MAYBE find another player. Oh and there are also still too much fleets and forts everywhere. And second chances that you get actual PvP are close to zero (no, ganking traders isnt PvP). 

So imo you have to have a marked area to attract people to it.

What does this even have to do with this post?  We are talking about screening port battles.  If you can't find some one in front of a hot spot that is about to have a port battle than you have a problem.  Even PvP2 isn't that dead.  You seem to jump off topics a lot.  This has nothing to do with OW PvP other than screening for port battles.  Which this new mechanics allows the folks that can't make the Port Battle cause it's all ready 25 vs 25 have something to do while the others fight.  SO you should very much be able to find that PvP you so call can't find.  Sounds like your going to hunt in the wrong areas and of course don't hunt in front of bit ports that has a bunch of forts and AI protecting it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeheil said:

In general, simply HURRAH !!

Oh and if you login, you can't join a port battle for 3 minutes and YOU ARE tagable. That is all.

Well if they log in inside the big out side circle they still have to sail to that point. I'm going to bet a lot of folks are going to get tagged logging in from in front of the port and trying to get to the outer circle.  I can all ready see the tears flowing on PvP2 cause a few of the last PB"s I been on some of the so called other nation leaders didn't know about certain port defense mechanics we used to win against over whelming odds.  You can all ways tell the folks that read the patch notes and who don't shortly after patches lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how will this system not overly benefit a larger nation compared to a smaller one? A smaller nation would have it's rvr core in the PB, while a larger nation would actually have more outside and thus gain more members since more chance of loot and then get more members to screen and even more screeners and more chance of loot...

See my point?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kloothommel said:

And how will this system not overly benefit a larger nation compared to a smaller one? A smaller nation would have it's rvr core in the PB, while a larger nation would actually have more outside and thus gain more members since more chance of loot and then get more members to screen and even more screeners and more chance of loot...

See my point?

broken record much?! - simple fix - port battles also get rewards - done. Nation balancing in a historical setting is a joke. Don't join tiny DN and expect to have the same size and possibilities as major seafaring nations such as GB, Spain or the Dutch.

Edited by JollyRoger1516

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JollyRoger1516 said:

broken record much?! - simple fix - port battles also get rewards - done. Nation balancing in a historical setting is a joke. Don't join tiny DN and expect to have the same size and possibilities as major seafaring nations such as GB, Spain or the Dutch.

Setting is only lends on the historical. Anybody with some intelligence would see my point. Are you really THAT dense?

And speaking about historical: Shouldn't the brits be at war with both Vp and US? Instead of allies? the historical arguement is void and null in online games. Go play total war for historical powerbalance.

 

Edited by Kloothommel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one thought.

If the screening action influences the port battle, it will make it very hard for small nations to ever counter aggression from a larger nation.

For example, a small nation might be able to win a 25 v 25 battle vs. a larger nation purely by being better sailors, regardless of whether screening has been effective or not.

However, if screening kills or whatever affect the PB outcome, the large nation is much more likely to win - they (with superior numbers) can simply blockade the port and gank anyone remotely close to it. Depending on how severe the blockade / ganking is, the small nation might end up entering a PB, completely out-sailing the large nation, but end up still loosing the PB due to kills etc. during screening.

I think this would be pretty demoralising.

Note I have absolutely no issue with screening being rewarded in some other way, just I really don't think it should be in any way linked to the outcome of the PB.

I say this coming from GB by the way, so don't think I'm only looking out after my own interests by suggesting small nations get a chance :)

Edited by randomtaskkk
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Archaos said:

Maybe some sort of nation balancing is required, but trying to bring everything down to equal fights is not the answer. A small nation that can only field a port battle fleet shouldnt be able to reach a port battle.

 

So this means at is at the moment, that Denmark/Norge, Sweden, France, US, Spain, should never be able to get a port battle as this nations only can field most of the time only the 25 players for the port battle, so it would be up to the brits and dutch to win port battles???

Not balancing small vs large nation would kill the small nation..

People say go recruit??? from where??? the large nation???  so this would be the selling point if u wanted to recruit from a larger nation.. come play with us as we are better sailors, BUT you will never get to a port battle cause of screeners and you will also be outnumbered in any pvp fight and most likely get ganked:) want to see the players that want to join when u tell them the fact of the game if the join a small nation..

Also JollyRoger don't want balance so we are more historic correct??? So when everyone joins the brits(brit alliance) and small nation are meaningless you think this really helps the game???

This would only lead to the brit alliance conquering the map within a few weeks with no resistans as the small nation would not bother as they allways get outnumbered, won't be able to get to a pb and would simply just die out after a short time! Yea that really helps the game..

=Edited- moderation team=

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kloothommel said:

Setting is only lends on the historical. Anybody with some intelligence would see my point. Are you really THAT dense?

And speaking about historical: Shouldn't the brits be at war with both Vp and US? Instead of allies? the historical arguement is void and null in online games. Go play total war for historical powerbalance.

 

Dense? Straight back at ya, your history knowledge is a bit lacking.

As much as the British like a war during the period this game is vaguely set in are we really supposed to have been at War with Holland and the US for the whole period?

If historical argument is null and void in online games why are you using it?

I disagree that smaller nations are disadvantaged the politics mechanic is there to help solve that imbalance.

Edited by Custard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Custard said:

Dense? Straight back at ya, your history knowledge is a bit lacking.

As much as the British like a war during the period this game is vaguely set in are we really supposed to have been at War with Holland and the US for the whole period?

If historical argument is null and void in online games why are you using it?

I used it to prove my point that is is irrelevant, as you are doing the same. I am saying the same. Read please.

Edited by Kloothommel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, North said:

So this means at is at the moment, that Denmark/Norge, Sweden, France, US, Spain, should never be able to get a port battle as this nations only can field most of the time only the 25 players for the port battle, so it would be up to the brits and dutch to win port battles???

Not balancing small vs large nation would kill the small nation..

People say go recruit??? from where??? the large nation???  so this would be the selling point if u wanted to recruit from a larger nation.. come play with us as we are better sailors, BUT you will never get to a port battle cause of screeners and you will also be outnumbered in any pvp fight and most likely get ganked:) want to see the players that want to join when u tell them the fact of the game if the join a small nation..

Also JollyRoger don't want balance so we are more historic correct??? So when everyone joins the brits(brit alliance) and small nation are meaningless you think this really helps the game???

This would only lead to the brit alliance conquering the map within a few weeks with no resistans as the small nation would not bother as they allways get outnumbered, won't be able to get to a pb and would simply just die out after a short time! Yea that really helps the game.. moron

Are you get a very boring server cause three nations all have a alliance with one another and the only folks they can fight are the pirates.  They won't fight each other so now we pretty much have a PvE server. That is what PvP2 has pretty much turned into.  I'm not even going to show up to any PvP events cause I know it will be a gank fest cause they have no one else to fight.   That is why you see some of them complaining on the PvP event thread that they can't fight any one and want alliances to not count.  You want to fight people?  Stop being buddy buddy with the other big nation and FIGHT EACH OTHER.   It's truely sad the only PvP that really happens on PvP2 is about 15-20 Pirates that fight all the nations (yes the same one that brought Brits to one port and US close to it).  If your that bad against just  a few players than leave them alone and stop poking the hornets nest.   Go fight each other and than you will have others to play with.   

 

I do feel sorry for poor Spain and France as they got like 5 players each at most.  Swedes pretty much a little more but it's one little group that has the whole servers pissed off.  Dans have all ways keep to there selves as it's mainly one clan.  yah this game has turned more into a PvE game than anything. Nothing encourages PvP or even any source of a balance national game play.  Limit what nations you can join if you re-roll.  Give incentives for folks to join smaller nations (xp/credit bonus like POTBS did).   Make it so that if a counrty is alligned with the other big nations they can't make a new one for so many weeks and maybe be forced to war with each other.  A lot of things can be done to help balance out the over poplated nations with the lower populated nations.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Join PVP1" is the only answer to "PVP2 sucks".

I see our Danish friends are forced to move on to newer and better unintended features in order to remain competitive. What unintended feature will they discover next, and how will it cause other nationalities to abandon the game in a sporting admission of being bested by upstanding gentlemen? Time shall tell. What we do know is that the port-battle prowess of nation states is now balanced according to the player count, and not to the willingness to log off in harbor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In its current format, good screening =/= good fights, so until that changes it's senseless to reward kills. The point about it is to deny the enemy fleet with as little BR as possible and often without the slightest hope of killing any of them. Protecting your PB fleet/port is its own reward - the only good thing about it is that it makes more sense to have PvP areas there than at a 'random predetermined spot in the ocean'. How about staging the PvP events at the upcoming PB region for the 46 hours until it happens, but not during the PB itself?

And if screening impacts on PB victory, then quite frankly sod this game - you can have a good screening fleet to make up for having a shitty PB fleet, or a good PB fleet to make up for a shitty screening fleet, but having the option to focus entirely on having a good (aka larger) screening fleet will irrevocably favour large nations/coalitions.

Edited by Aegir
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, North said:

So this means at is at the moment, that Denmark/Norge, Sweden, France, US, Spain, should never be able to get a port battle as this nations only can field most of the time only the 25 players for the port battle, so it would be up to the brits and dutch to win port battles???

Not balancing small vs large nation would kill the small nation..

People say go recruit??? from where??? the large nation???  so this would be the selling point if u wanted to recruit from a larger nation.. come play with us as we are better sailors, BUT you will never get to a port battle cause of screeners and you will also be outnumbered in any pvp fight and most likely get ganked:) want to see the players that want to join when u tell them the fact of the game if the join a small nation..

Also JollyRoger don't want balance so we are more historic correct??? So when everyone joins the brits(brit alliance) and small nation are meaningless you think this really helps the game???

This would only lead to the brit alliance conquering the map within a few weeks with no resistans as the small nation would not bother as they allways get outnumbered, won't be able to get to a pb and would simply just die out after a short time! Yea that really helps the game..  

There is no need to resort to abuse because you disagree with me.

Remember we are testing game mechanics and hopefully upon release the game will have far larger numbers of players, so bringing in mechanics to the game now that suit the current game numbers may lead to a poor game on full release.

Let us look at the "small nation" scenario in extreme, where a small nation has only 5 players, should we adjust the game mechanics so that those 5 players can fight on a level playing field against a nation of 200 players?

I think some things will sort themselves out if left. If a single nation or alliance is so big that they can roll across the map too easily then eventually people will get bored of it and look for other ways to get good fights. This may be by people leaving to join another nation or by the alliance eventually dissolving.

In the last patch with people logging out in front of ports the screening battles were almost nonexistant, which excluded a lot of players from the game. I hope this new patch will bring back some screening action. The screening has to be able to prevent the port battle if it is successful, if not it is pointless. If the game was just about port battles then we may as well just have a lobby where port battles are set up and run from there and forget OW altogether.

Are you saying that even with the current numbers of players that the 4 nation alliance can only muster 25 people? I dont think so, because they managed to attack 6 ports at the same time. Imagine if that number were sent to attack one port, the screening battles would have been epic. And so what if the port battle did not happen sometimes, as long as a lot of fun PvP was had, who cares.

I agree that something may need to be done to stop people respawning and rejoining the battle in throwaway ships, but to limit the number of players a nation can field or somehow even up BR in screening battles is not a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One proposal to eliminate basic ship spam at port battles is to remove AI ship production, or severely limit it, outside of basic cutters and outside of nation capitals. This combined with one dura ships might make crafting, pre battle fleet buildup, etc. all viable economic activities to support the port battle effort.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wraith said:

 

One proposal to eliminate basic ship spam at port battles is to remove AI ship production, or severely limit it, outside of basic cutters and outside of nation capitals. This combined with one dura ships might make crafting, pre battle fleet buildup, etc. all viable economic activities to support the port battle effort.

 

removing ports in 100% hostiliy from "friendly" list to the effect of respawn(and new post battle screen teleport) would lessen defender´s advantage , even withouth 1 dura change. closing the outpost there to teleports could be even better

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eishen said:

removing ports in 100% hostiliy from "friendly" list to the effect of respawn(and new post battle screen teleport) would lessen defender´s advantage , even withouth 1 dura change. closing the outpost there to teleports could be even better

All of this!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

instead of attacking 7 ports at once how about this: use 6*25 players for some epic battles outside while you attack 1 port?

im rather sure you can reach the harbour AND give content to tons of players without resorting to some strange gamy mechanics

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a big fan of this. Why disrupting players who are heading to PB? what about nation with only few players who just made the numbers to defend their ports and they get split and killed outside? This means PB is over for them. All that work from multiple time zones who worked hard is wasted by this addition. You think they will come back and do it again? I don't think so. I would instead protect participants and make sure PB is filled 25vs25 by adding a PB participant flag that would protect them. Unless you want people to sink on the way to pb...:huh:

For such addition to work correctly you need very large player population for each nation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should participants be protected?  Why insure they make it to the battle?  If defenders want to insure they make it to the battle, sail there several hours ahead of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kloothommel said:

Setting is only lends on the historical. Anybody with some intelligence would see my point. Are you really THAT dense?

And speaking about historical: Shouldn't the brits be at war with both Vp and US? Instead of allies? the historical arguement is void and null in online games. Go play total war for historical powerbalance.

 

The US yes - the Dutch clearly not! (assuming this is the beginning of the 19th century)

And considering you keep bringing the realism argument whenever it fits you - that sword cuts both ways mate! Nonetheless my point was people shouldn't have joined DN but Spain or GB in the first palce if they wanted the big boy game. If you play DN to push them up there the challenge is about earning your place in the face of overwhelming odds. Balancing in a single fight is something is completely support though not the way the devs are going for it in the last months. However nation balancing is a ridiculous idea as you want to elevate a sidenote of history to a superpower with this. (no offense to the Danes) The role of the smaller nations int he region was support for their allies and small scale colonies for trade and production.

Apart from that - keep your insulting tone at bay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chimera said:

instead of attacking 7 ports at once how about this: use 6*25 players for some epic battles outside while you attack 1 port?

im rather sure you can reach the harbour AND give content to tons of players without resorting to some strange gamy mechanics

now that would require bravery and sacrifice - what is that? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the end of the 1700s and very beginning of the 1800s, during the Quasi War with France, the US and British were sort of like allies in Naval Action.  The British allowed US ships to supply and be based out of British ports and didn't fight each other.  Both were against France.  There was a significant population in the US that was against France and for working with Britain.  When British-US relations soured after the Quasi War, major players in US politics were not happy.  They argued we are more like the British (our mother country) than the French, especially with Napoleon's rule.

Edited by Prater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JollyRoger1516 said:

The US yes - the Dutch clearly not! (assuming this is the beginning of the 19th century)

Oh boy... Game runs from 1680-1830 timeperiod.

A small list of wars between Gb and the Dutch in that period (including conflicts where they were in one way or another opposed):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Anglo-Dutch_War (gee, I wonder why it is called that)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Mysore_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Second_Coalition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Third_Coalition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Fourth_Coalition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Fifth_Coalition

Quite a list here.

And concerning my choice for D-N? I went there to play with friends who joined that nation. Those friends all quit the game by now. But I remain loyal to those i play with. That is my reason to join Denmark-Norge. And that is what this game is driving on and thus should be slightly balanced on: Players playing it, friedns playing together, not historical significance or size of the historical country/nation.

 

Shortminded individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kloothommel said:

Oh boy... Game runs from 1680-1830 timeperiod.

A small list of wars between Gb and the Dutch in that period (including conflicts where they were in one way or another opposed):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Anglo-Dutch_War (gee, I wonder why it is called that)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Mysore_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Second_Coalition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Third_Coalition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Fourth_Coalition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Fifth_Coalition

Quite a list here.

And concerning my choice for D-N? I went there to play with friends who joined that nation. Those friends all quit the game by now. But I remain loyal to those i play with. That is my reason to join Denmark-Norge. And that is what this game is driving on and thus should be slightly balanced on: Players playing it, friedns playing together, not historical significance or size of the historical country/nation.

 

Shortminded individual.

Oh boy - you can't argue on the basis of a changing time period at least I provided you with a rough estimate - your argument that Dutch and GB would be at war is as equally valid then as it is for being allied as the taking of Gibraltar  and with the establishment of the Batavian republic the other Dutch were close allies just as much! In the end the Dutch and GB were close allies.

Also were do you take 1680? - Ingermanland (oldest ship as far as I know) is from 1715.

As to the nations - if I were to demand historical settings your nation would never leave their port and remain in absolute insignificance a fact that you ahve overcome and that I find good. But you ahve done so from the underdog position which is the starting point of your nation. Your demand of total equality is equally ridicilous as people joining the pirates demanding access to nations and the same gameplay. That joke was running for half a year - have you learned nothing of it?! Before you insult somebody and call them shortsighted maybe you use your own brain and expand past your own demands for once. I understand wanting to play with your friends as we all do but that does not change the inherent characteristics of the different nations or we could just all run around with nation red, blue, green,etc. as nations would be pointless. Also capturing areas of the map creates the same problems for if one alliance loses all access to live oak/strong hull - the other gets a massive bonus for all port battles to come. Doesn't matter which side is effected by it in the end the equality you demand is unachieveable under the current game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...